Replies

Yes. There was an allegation. He reported the allegation. He apparently thought he knew Sandusky, and figured there was no way he’d be doing what he was alleged to have done, and since the investigation went nowhere, that could well have convinced him that he was right. People who are invested in other people have a very hard time believing those other people could really do bad things, and even if you have multiple accusers, Paterno was likely to still believe the denials, because that’s what he wanted to believe.

Shoule he be fired for trusting his friend? I mean, if any evidence shows that he was aware of more than he spoke about, that’s a totally different situation.

Frankly, and I’m a fan of Penn State and Paterno, I think he should resign. Maybe that would be unfair, but the story is going to suck the life out of Penn state, and even unsubstantiated allegations that Paterno knew something are going to make it impossible for Penn State to come through this, so long as Paterno is still there.

Sometimes, even being technically innocent isn’t enough.

It would be tough to believe this of a friend, no doubt. Or if not a friend at least someone he had coached and then worked with for many years. However, he had time to come to grips with the reality of the situation and to see that there was at least a very strong possibility that his friend/colleague had a monstrous Hyde side to him which, as the name implies, he had managed to keep hidden through the years. At least up until an incident in '98 (which Paterno may or may not have known about) and then of course the 2002 incident.

However, one thing that i do think needs to be at least considered is whether the grad asst McQueary actually did go into full detail about the incident with Paterno (and later the other higher ups) as he claims, or whether he had downplayed it, merely saying he saw Sandusky and the boy horsing around together in the shower. The grand jury believed McQueary and not the others, especially Curley and the other official, but i'm not as convinced.

After all, McQueary stumbled upon a horrific crime taking place and yet didn't stop it, didn't call 911. So he may have been reluctant to describe what he saw in more than a vague way, for then everyone would wonder why he didn't immediately intervene and rescue the boy. Therefore he may have watered it down in order that he wouldn't come off looking weak, especially in front of his former head coach and current boss. And Paterno definitely is not the type of man you want to look weak in front of.

So then years later it comes to trial and this time he, for whatever reason, is ready to finally give a full account to what he witnessed. But this suddenly puts him in another predicament. For he would surely realize that it would be in his best interest to say that this was the version he had told all along, since if he admits that he had initially only portrayed it as horsing around and such, then the blame falls on him for not reporting the incident accurately.

This is just something that occurs to me as a possible alternate scenario, one that would put things in a slightly better light for Paterno and the other PSU higher ups. For i am not at all convinced that McQueary is of a particularly strong character and someone that can be totally relied upon.